Wednesday, 23 January 2013

Unlike my recent books, this is not a novel but a factual work, following
the 22 princesses from childhood to the end of the First World War.

This is not intended to be a 'scholarly' work although it is based on years
of research, but rather a glimpse into the halcyon days of the European
monarchies, the everyday experiences of the princesses, and the intricate web of family ties connecting the different royal
courts. Writing it was a labour of love and, while I appreciate that with 22
central characters and a ‘cast of thousands’ (slight exaggeration!) it might be
confusing for readers who are unfamiliar with the royal families, I have
included a short who’s who, at the beginning of each chapter (particularly to facilitate Kindle readers).

The book is divided into 4 Parts: Part 1 – “Like the rabbits in Windsor
Park” - An introduction to the families of Queen Victoria’s Children
Part 2 – “A Very Doubtful
Happiness” - Happy & Unhappy Marriages
Part 3 – “The Last Link is
Broken” – Changes & Conflicts
Part 4 – “Marching to their
Deaths” – War & Tragedy

“Queen Victoria’s Granddaughters” will be available on Kindle within a few weeks
and I shall write more information about it here as the publication date approaches.

Monday, 14 January 2013

I have been re-reading Emmeline Pankhurst’s interesting autobiography: “My Own Story – Memories of a Militant”, and the account of events prior to her
founding of the Women’s Social and Political Union (the ‘suffragettes’) is
fascinating and also casts a light on how very far more recent ‘feminists’
strayed from the original Women’s Movement, although they hijacked the
suffragettes and claimed to be following the same cause.

Mrs Pankhurst came from a relatively well-to-do family in Manchester where
her parents were actively involved in social reform. Such was her background
that her parents were able to send her to a private school in Paris and she was
clearly a particularly clever child. From her earliest years she was also
affronted by the idea that her brothers’ education was seen as more important as
her own, and when she heard her father once say of her: “What a pity she wasn’t
born a lad!” she realised that the lot of women was one of subservience and
inferiority to men. This, of course, would impact her later career.

Far more importantly, however, Mrs Pankhurst became a Poor Law Guardian
involved with the Manchester Workhouse, where she instituted many reforms but
frequently found herself in confrontation with the all-male Board of Guardians. Her descriptions of the state of the young
girls in the workhouse are very moving:

“I found there were many pregnant women in the workhouse, scrubbing floors,
doing the hardest kind of work, almost until their babies came into the world.
Many of them were unmarried women, very, very young...mere girls. These poor
mothers were allowed to stay in the hospital after their confinement for a short
two weeks. Then they had to make a choice of staying in the workhouse and
earning their living by scrubbing and other work, in which case they were
separated from their babies; or they could be discharged. They could stay and be
paupers or they could leave – leave with a two-week old baby in their arms,
without hope, without a home, without money, without anywhere to go...”

And again: “It is from that class of workhouse mothers – mostly young
servant girls...more than from any other that illegitimacy comes. These poor
little servant girls...fall easy prey to those who have designs on them...” She
goes on to describe how these girls often are forced to send their babies to
‘baby farmers’ whom they pay to care for them so that the mothers can work to
survive. The baby-farms are not inspected because “if a man who ruins a girl
pays down a sum of £20, the boarding home is immune from inspection. As long as
the baby farmer takes only one child at a time, the house cannot be inspected.
Of course the babies die with hideous promptness, often long before the twenty
pounds has been spent, and then baby farmers are free to solicit another victim.
For years, as I have said, women have tried to get that one reform of the Poor
Law to reach and protect all illegitimate children, and to make it impossible
for any rich scoundrel to escape future liability for his child because of the
lump sum he has paid. Over and over again it has been tried, but it has
always failed because the ones who really care about such things are
women.”

This is one small example from the book, which demonstrates that one of the
main reasons why women demanded the vote was the protection of children.
The suffragettes – and Mrs Pankhurst in particular – firmly believed
that giving women the vote was vital not only to recognise the value of women
but also to recognise the importance of women’s maternal qualities and ensure that women were able to care for their children properly.

I find it really distressing that these great ideals for which the
courageous suffragettes were prepared to suffer imprisonment, torture (and in
some cases even death!) were so distorted by later feminists who claim to be
following in their footsteps. Many years ago, while visiting a suffragette
museum, I was aghast to see it filled with feminist literature supporting ‘a
woman’s right to choose abortion', as though that were something the
suffragettes would have supported!!

Naturally, there have been many benefits from the so-called 'women's movement' (equal pay, equal opportunities etc.) and I am a 100% advocate of equality and mutual respect; but I feel
that there has also been a great distortion of what it means to be truly
feminine. Many women who have attained high positions in business or politics,
behave in a masculine manner, rather than employing feminine qualities. The
worst part of all, though, is the way in which – in many cases – children (born
or unborn) are seen as an inconvenience rather than complete individuals. Parenthood is seen as a right (and one that can then be handed over the state!) rather than a privilege. Motherhood is not respected and many mothers seem to view the state (or schools or other institutions) as responsible for their children.

I would highly recommend that those who promote feminism,
look back at the writings of the campaigners for women’s emancipation, and
recognise that these heroines were absolutely committed to the care of children
and would undoubtedly be appalled that somehow their efforts have been distorted
into pro-abortion arguments or the arguments which are even more widely bandied about nowadays, whereby children are somehow seen as the responsibility of the state rather than the parents. The suffragettes were aiming to enable mothers and fathers to care for their children and not to make them the responsibility of the Poor Law, the benefit system or any other aspect of the state.

Thursday, 10 January 2013

I received an email to say that the podcast link on this site doesn’t work
for some ipads/tablets. I am not sure how widespread that is but am grateful to
the person who sent the email telling me of this. All the podcasts can be heard
at:

Monday, 7 January 2013

On a rather dull January day, when many people have the post-Christmas blues, it's lovely to think of somewhere beautiful. I think my favourite place in the entire world is probably Osborne House, and this wonderful description from Queen Marie of Roumania captures it so perfectly:

"Osborne! The very name is still a joy. It meant
summer holidays, it meant the sea and the seashore, it meant wonderful shells to
be found when the tide was low—shells of every color and shape. It meant
glorious bathing when the tide was high, and drives in the big "wagonette," as
we called our brake, through the sweet-smelling woods, past hedges full of
honeysuckle.

And it meant dear old Grandmama Queen in the
background. Grandmama Queen at breakfast under her ecru, green-fringed parasol,
surrounded by dogs, Indians, Highlanders, and also an aunt or two in nervous
attendance, or occasionally a curtsying lady in waiting in correct black, all
smiles and with the mellowed voice usual to those who served or attended to the
great little old lady.

It also meant the beautiful terraces in front of
Osborne House where the big magnolias grew against the walls, those giant
magnolias which had a lemonlike fragrance and in which you could bury your whole
face, but which you never dared pick because they were far too precious and
exotic for childish plunder. Even when faded and their petals turned to a sort
of leathery brown, they still kept their delicious scent, and then their curious
hard-pointed centers became very prominent; they really were mystery flowers, as
also were the passion flowers with their cross in the center and the many
stamens laid flat in a perfect circle like the wheels of a watch. There was also
jasmine on those terraces, and jasmine has always filled me with a sort of
ecstasy."

Friday, 4 January 2013

I wonder why, whenever there are documentaries on TV about the royalties of
the past, they seem to go out of their way to denigrate these people and present
a biased opinion. Over the past three evenings, the BBC aired a documentary
series: Queen Victoria’s Children, which, rather than concentrating on the
wonderful things that many of these children achieved, focussed totally on what
an appalling mother the ‘talking heads’ on the programme conceived the Queen to
be.

Of course, it is well-known that the Queen Victoria was very needy and her
behaviour towards her children was not ideal but this programme repeated over
and over again phrases such as ‘domestic tyrant’, ‘pathological’ and
‘control-freak’ in describing Queen Victoria. It also took many of her written
words out of context and presented a very dark view of her, implying that
all her children were unhappy and in a constant state of rebellion
against her. She and Prince Albert were presented as totally absorbed in each
other to the detriment of their children. Nothing was said in favour of
the Queen and so it became a very mean-spirited series.

I don’t deny that she had countless shortcomings as a mother and was one of
the neediest people in history, but there was no attempt to understand that or
explain her motives, nor did the programme say anything about her
kindnesses or how she would write something on the spur of the moment, and later
relent. A few things were also very unjust e.g. ‘she had her children beaten’ –
well yes, we know that is cruel and awful but it was common practice. ‘She saw
them only twice a day but could always make time for Albert’ – she spent more
time with her children than the majority of royalties of the time did, and of
course she made time for Albert because he was hugely involved in her work as
Queen! Also it was stated that the children all had arranged marriages and that
is a blatant untruth. While, of course, according to the mores of the time, it
was important to find suitable ‘partis’ and make appropriate marriages, none of
them was forced to marry against his/her will. Vicky was extremely
young, but they didn’t just pack her off to a loveless marriage (as did many
other royal parents at the time). Nor did the programme mention how Queen
Victoria went out of her way to find a loving wife for Leopold because that what
was he wanted; and the same was true of Lenchen. The documentary also said that
the children were raised with a strong awareness of their own position (as
though they were superior) but said nothing of the fact that the awareness of
their position – in Prince Albert’s eyes particularly – meant they must be aware
of the responsibility that accompanies privilege. Absolutely, Queen Victoria was
a complex and demanding mother, but there are many examples of the genuine love
she had for her children. What’s more, although she and Albert made mistakes,
they were almost unique in their wish to ‘do the right thing’ for them and for
the country.

Several times on other documentaries recently, I have heard Prince Albert
described as ‘a bore’ and ‘a prude’. This is quite staggering, considering the
extent of Prince Albert’s interests! He was an artist, musician and composer
with a strong interest in engineering and science, as well as a tactful diplomat
who smoothed over many disputes between politicians, and had a very strong
social conscience and went out of his way to improve housing and working
conditions for the poor. Moreover, whether or not his treatment of his children meets modern ideals, he spent a great deal of time with them and loved them deeply. His daughters were educated beyond what was common for the princesses of that era; he encouraged his tomboy daughter, Lenchen, to ride fast horses because that brought her joy, and he taught his children himself. He was a Renaissance man but because he didn’t like
frittering his time away in ballrooms, was faithful to his wife, and didn’t have
numerous affairs, he is viewed as a prude and a bore? He was hardly prudish,
considering the works of art he often exchanged with his wife! And he was hardly
a bore when he could converse on such a wide range of subjects!

I do wish that, if they must present these documentaries, they would at
least present an opposing view to show these people in a truer light!